Do you believe it is worth it to sacrifice some economy for the environment?

Question

Even if it means some economic decline, do you think we should do it for the sake of a cleaner earth for our children? Or is making money more important to you? And why?

Answer 1

The jeopardy of the environment is no longer just about clean air or the like. What is being discussed (and proven) is that, with the gasses being trapped in earth's atmosphere, the polar ice caps are melting. When this happens, water levels rise - significantly. It is reported that, if we continue to emit these gasses, the water level on this planet will raise 20 feet. That will put several countries completely underwater. And its not about leaving a planet for our children...this will happen IN OUR LIFETIME!

It isn't a case of economic sacrifices...if we don't do something, there will be NO ECONOMY.

With respect, I suggest you investigate Global Warming. Leave the political fanatics who blame it all away to political infighting in the US, and do some research. The information is staggering...and not a hoax!

Answer 2

First - yes. We must have a livable planet, and that should be our first concern.

However, I believe this is ultimately a false choice that has been promoted by specific industries. Being ecologically conscious really just means being efficient in energy use, and avoiding certain types of activities (burning coal, for instance). This would not hurt the economy as a whole, but would merely hurt certain segments, while it benefited others.

For example, if we began to massively promote solar and wind technology, it would certainly hurt the coal industry, but it would be a massive boost to those making windmills and solar panels. As such, the NET effect on the overall economy would be essentially nothing.

The problem with the above scenario is that coal is an exisitng multi-billion dollar industry, with the political lobbying $ to match. Solar and wind are still tiny, and so can't compete with matching lobbying money. Therefore, we have a congress that exists to serve existing interests to the exclusion of technological development and innovation.

People said requiring aribags would hurt the economy by damaging the car manufaturers, but what it really did was create a brand-new industry for the manufacture of airbags. My friend worked for a company that did exactly that--a company that wouldn't have existed without those "damaging" regulations everyone opposed.

So, lets save the environment AND the economy.

Answer 3

We already have. Manufacturers locate to other countries because they can not meet EPA standards. I know you are told that they are just greedy but it is not so. The chemicals that are used to etch electronic circuit boards for example have been so severely restricted that they are no longer even manufactured here. because they are not and because similar restrictions apply to the manufacture of other components assembly is simply easier and cheaper where the parts can be manufactured.

Further restrictions on exploiting natural gas and even wind and solar have left us extremely dependent on foreign oil. You are looking at the situation as a child would and not taking into account just how far reaching these regulations are.

We should start with the easy stuff and work up.Whole sale banning of things does not just hurt our economy it jeopardizes our security. The more we are dependent on nations that are our enemies such as some of those in the middle east and of course China the worse off we are.When these things are banned in our country they simply move production to a country that allows it, you gain nothing. It may make you feel good but the same or worse pollution is still produced.

Answer 4

I don't think they should be considered mutually exclusive. I mean, an economy based on cleaning the air and water and land would create ALOT of new technology and new jobs. It's already happening. I think there would be a new surge in research and development and this would create alot of new science and technology jobs. Getting off oil would diversify our economy even more and a more diversified economy means more jobs. Relying on one sole source of energy and means to a good economy makes us more vulnerable to increases of cost to produce and distribute that energy. I think our increase in gas prices has proven that this past year. Being on oil means that we are too dependent on the mid-east and too dependent on corporations to provide for us. Look, new businesses are already forming that provide solar energy for our houses and businesses in the form of solar roofing. And, many businesses have started that convert deisle engines to vegie deisle or that gut pick up trucks and make them entirely battery powered getting nearly 250 miles per charge. Those are huge advancements. And, in the southern California area as well as all along the west coast, people are really knocking down the walls to get their vehicles changed to these. It's not only good for the environment, it's good for the economy as well.

Answer 5

Because it's been quite well proven than any significant impact on the environment would require severe economic impacts.

But nothing is stopping people like you from stopping all usage of anything but natural, renewable energy, and buying nothing that required using polluting energy sources to create, fabricate, manufacture, harvest, transport, etc. Let us know how that goes.

Answer 6

Certainly, considering without an environment it would be impossible to have an economy.

Answer 7

The state of the economy is more important to me, because what good is clean air for my children if they die of starvation?

Answer 8

Of course, and the solutions are not going to become cheaper if we continue to wait.